Source of repression in western liberalism

[CaptainPanic]

All you are saying is that liberalism is accepting of personal choice where (self)repression is concerned - but the issue remains of what the source of repression is, if not religion.

 

What about this fictional example: I like to whistle while I work. But I work in an open office environment, and I know for a fact that my whistling annoys other people. I therefore repress myself - and the goal is to please other people (or, more accurate: not to annoy other people). There is no rulebook that says I cannot whistle. It's not in my contract. It's no religious repression. It's just me, choosing not to whistle.

 

There is always repression, for the simple reason that you will not always be exactly the same as another person... But in a liberal world, I believe that it is important that there is a mutual repression between people, give and take.

 

Religion is just one set of rules to live by, but almost everyone has a set of rules. And you will probably find that the secular liberal people have a set of rules too.

 

A true liberal accepts that other people might have other rules... because people have the freedom to choose their own set of rules. But at the same time, it is important that those other people also accept the liberal. And that's where the annoyance with the more fundamentalist religions comes from: the lack of acceptance that other people are different.

Edited February 1, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[lemur]

What about this fictional example: I like to whistle while I work. But I work in an open office environment, and I know for a fact that my whistling annoys other people. I therefore repress myself - and the goal is to please other people (or, more accurate: not to annoy other people). There is no rulebook that says I cannot whistle. It's not in my contract. It's no religious repression. It's just me, choosing not to whistle.

 

There is always repression, for the simple reason that you will not always be exactly the same as another person... But in a liberal world, I believe that it is important that there is a mutual repression between people, give and take.

 

Religion is just one set of rules to live by, but almost everyone has a set of rules. And you will probably find that the secular liberal people have a set of rules too.

This harkens back to the post about a whole culture of handwalking developing to please women so that they'll go to bed with you. I think you hit the nail on the head with people repressing and even pro-actively conditioning their behavior to please others. They do so to solicit favorable treatment or other social perks. You could call it the great butt-kissing orgy of liberal relativism. This is why the religion of Islam is so suspect from the perspective of secular liberalism, I think. "Islam" means "submission to God," which implies not submitting to worldly/social authority. So if you think it is God's will for you to whistle at work, even if your colleagues don't like it, you do it because that is the right thing to do in your best judgment. There are other paths to independent decision-making besides citing "the will of God," but the point is that for some reason secular liberalism manages to promote social-submission over independent judgment and I'm not sure why that is exactly. Why hasn't secular liberalism resulted in greater individual independence and freedom from devoting oneself primarily to pleasing others? Why don't free westerners develop a sense of values beyond catering to what other people want, are willing to pay you to do, etc.? Why isn't their higher (secular) judgment?

[Athena]

Um, false dichotomy? Why would you expect universal anything, rather than the spectrum of behavior we see, basically everywhere? Why should fewer inhibitions necessarily lead to rampant promiscuity? Removing or reducing the religious component does not automatically turn people away from monogamy. Social structure undoubtedly predates the invention of religion.

 

I like question, why would one expect universal anything?

 

You follow this question with a comment about social structure. I think it is safe to say, human beings are social creatures and as such do need social structure. I think we should look at other social animals to understand our own nature. There are some universal laws shared among social creatures. Beyond what social animals share in common there are differences. Chimpanzee are male dominant and Bonobo are female dominant. This means they have different social structures.

 

More to what you have said about our sexual behavior, there is much variety and yet also shared behaviors. How about cutting off pieces of genitals? We know Jews have practiced circumcision for religious reasons, but so did the Aztecs. Some Africans, and for awhile those of European descent, circumcised women. Among those of European descent this was considered especially necessary if the female would become sexually aroused, because this was associated with being like an animal and immoral. Then there is the African tribe that whacks a young man's penis whenever it becomes stiff. I think their are different explanations, for circumcising males than for circumcising females, but a shared goal is controlled reproduction and agreements about the duties and rights of parents. If a female lacks sexual urges, she is less likely to have unwanted children. Another way to achieve this goal is to have honor killings. That is to kill the female who is seen with a male other than her father, husband or son. Fear of death is a pretty good inhibitor. And so is fear of social rejection.

 

In the US one of the major cries is objection to unwed mothers and the welfare problem this creates. Not only is this a budget problem, but is apt to lead to many social problems as well. And it is personally a terrible problem for many women. A mother does not have freedom, so she better think twice before having causal sex! Unwanted children and the spread of sexually transmitted are very good reasons for creating sexual inhibitions, and the burden of this in the US rest on the parents, while the media seems intent on promoting sexual freedom, creating a morally lax culture from which we can not protect our children. Only recently has the US enforced child support payments by garnishing a parents pay check, so it was thought birth control was a protection for women only, not for men. This resulted in a double standard with males enjoying sexual freedom, and social rejection for women who had sex outside of marriage. It was a terrible burden put on women, especially considering the pressure males put on females to have sex.

 

Male carelessness and complete lack of a sense of responsibility or commitment, can be a serious relationship problem between males and females. Considering the importance of both parents to raising children, why would an intelligent person have causal sex? In the animal world where two parents are needed to raise the off spring, there are high standards to meet before mating can begin. A male whose only intent is sexual relief, does not meet the standard of a desirable male. It is a sad fact that so many women do have sex with very low standard males. Actually human females are more sexually free than many animals. Among humans, the female can be sexual receptive even when it is obvious the male will not be a good father, and males can be completely careless about how good of a mother the female will be. Not only do some animals have more rigid mating standards, but they don't excuse bad behavior with fantasies of love. Perhaps nothing gives humans more trouble than fantasies of love.

 

This harkens back to the post about a whole culture of handwalking developing to please women so that they'll go to bed with you. I think you hit the nail on the head with people repressing and even pro-actively conditioning their behavior to please others. They do so to solicit favorable treatment or other social perks. You could call it the great butt-kissing orgy of liberal relativism. This is why the religion of Islam is so suspect from the perspective of secular liberalism, I think. "Islam" means "submission to God," which implies not submitting to worldly/social authority. So if you think it is God's will for you to whistle at work, even if your colleagues don't like it, you do it because that is the right thing to do in your best judgment. There are other paths to independent decision-making besides citing "the will of God," but the point is that for some reason secular liberalism manages to promote social-submission over independent judgment and I'm not sure why that is exactly. Why hasn't secular liberalism resulted in greater individual independence and freedom from devoting oneself primarily to pleasing others? Why don't free westerners develop a sense of values beyond catering to what other people want, are willing to pay you to do, etc.? Why isn't their higher (secular) judgment?

 

Hey, these are some exciting arguments. In political philosophy, it is mentioned the democracy leads to excessive conformity. Tocqueville his book in "Democracy in America" warns of this problem, and seems to favor aristocracy. While I argue for democracy, I also agree with Tocqueville about the benefits of democracy. In the US we not only have a democracy but we are Christian dominated, and have made quality a priority. Then WWII exasperated the problem of excessive conformity, because of a paranoia of anyone who is different. Then we follow WWII by replacing liberal education with education for technology. Among other things, this change in education is literally a change in how we condition the young to think. We have gone from a focus on independent thinking to "group think". This is devastating to our democracy where independent thinking is essential to our liberty. The night of a government that rules over the minute details of our lives is being manifest, and I am horrified by the number of careers that have been destroyed because of what someone said. It is like Hitler's Germany, because our education for technology is an adoptation of Germany's education for technology. We now not only have "politically correct thinking", and policies that come with the power to control what we say, but a population that thinks this is a good thing!

[swansont]

I like question, why would one expect universal anything?

 

You follow this question with a comment about social structure. I think it is safe to say, human beings are social creatures and as such do need social structure. I think we should look at other social animals to understand our own nature. There are some universal laws shared among social creatures. Beyond what social animals share in common there are differences. Chimpanzee are male dominant and Bonobo are female dominant. This means they have different social structures.

 

 

Precisely — we need and have social structure. Religion is not the entirety of social structure, so the absence of religion does not mandate social anarchy or extremism.

[lemur]

I like question, why would one expect universal anything?

Universalism was criticized strongly by cultural relativists but the paradox is that once you recognize that all culture is relative, universalism becomes a situated cultural expression that is legitimate in its own cultural context. What's more, universal claims are arguable the essence of all cultural power, whether it is claimed explicitly or implicitly. It is often subject to criticism when expressed overtly, but when expressed covertly in the form of cultural-imperative statements, relativists tend to go along simply because the only culture they ever feel legitimate in criticizing is universalism or ethnocentrism. Ironically, no cultural expression is without some degree of either or both.

 

You follow this question with a comment about social structure. I think it is safe to say, human beings are social creatures and as such do need social structure. I think we should look at other social animals to understand our own nature. There are some universal laws shared among social creatures. Beyond what social animals share in common there are differences. Chimpanzee are male dominant and Bonobo are female dominant. This means they have different social structures.

It's funny that you just criticized universalism and then you're claiming it here. Social structure is a certain perspective regarding social power/action. Instead of actively dominating others, boundaries and rules are formulated and intervention is framed as a response to declared violations. This allows the aggressor to justify their aggression as a reaction to something else instead of a pro-active choice. Saying that people need social structure is like saying a wife needs an occasional beating to keep her submissive/obedient. The issue should be whether the "structured" are being "structured" by choice, and if not on what grounds? It's hardly legitimate to say that structuring people is good because they need structure. It's circular.

 

More to what you have said about our sexual behavior, there is much variety and yet also shared behaviors. How about cutting off pieces of genitals? We know Jews have practiced circumcision for religious reasons, but so did the Aztecs. Some Africans, and for awhile those of European descent, circumcised women. Among those of European descent this was considered especially necessary if the female would become sexually aroused, because this was associated with being like an animal and immoral. Then there is the African tribe that whacks a young man's penis whenever it becomes stiff. I think their are different explanations, for circumcising males than for circumcising females, but a shared goal is controlled reproduction and agreements about the duties and rights of parents. If a female lacks sexual urges, she is less likely to have unwanted children. Another way to achieve this goal is to have honor killings. That is to kill the female who is seen with a male other than her father, husband or son. Fear of death is a pretty good inhibitor. And so is fear of social rejection.

As interesting as cultural anthropology can be, I think in this case it is a departure from more intimate reflection about non-religious forms of repression in western culture.

 

In the US one of the major cries is objection to unwed mothers and the welfare problem this creates. Not only is this a budget problem, but is apt to lead to many social problems as well. And it is personally a terrible problem for many women. A mother does not have freedom, so she better think twice before having causal sex! Unwanted children and the spread of sexually transmitted are very good reasons for creating sexual inhibitions, and the burden of this in the US rest on the parents, while the media seems intent on promoting sexual freedom, creating a morally lax culture from which we can not protect our children. Only recently has the US enforced child support payments by garnishing a parents pay check, so it was thought birth control was a protection for women only, not for men. This resulted in a double standard with males enjoying sexual freedom, and social rejection for women who had sex outside of marriage. It was a terrible burden put on women, especially considering the pressure males put on females to have sex.

So eugenics is better than religion?

 

Male carelessness and complete lack of a sense of responsibility or commitment, can be a serious relationship problem between males and females. Considering the importance of both parents to raising children, why would an intelligent person have causal sex? In the animal world where two parents are needed to raise the off spring, there are high standards to meet before mating can begin. A male whose only intent is sexual relief, does not meet the standard of a desirable male. It is a sad fact that so many women do have sex with very low standard males. Actually human females are more sexually free than many animals. Among humans, the female can be sexual receptive even when it is obvious the male will not be a good father, and males can be completely careless about how good of a mother the female will be. Not only do some animals have more rigid mating standards, but they don't excuse bad behavior with fantasies of love. Perhaps nothing gives humans more trouble than fantasies of love.

I think for some reason that using love as a justification for sex is more common among women than men, but this may be a stereotype.

 

Hey, these are some exciting arguments. In political philosophy, it is mentioned the democracy leads to excessive conformity. Tocqueville his book in "Democracy in America" warns of this problem, and seems to favor aristocracy. While I argue for democracy, I also agree with Tocqueville about the benefits of democracy. In the US we not only have a democracy but we are Christian dominated, and have made quality a priority. Then WWII exasperated the problem of excessive conformity, because of a paranoia of anyone who is different. Then we follow WWII by replacing liberal education with education for technology. Among other things, this change in education is literally a change in how we condition the young to think. We have gone from a focus on independent thinking to "group think". This is devastating to our democracy where independent thinking is essential to our liberty. The night of a government that rules over the minute details of our lives is being manifest, and I am horrified by the number of careers that have been destroyed because of what someone said. It is like Hitler's Germany, because our education for technology is an adoptation of Germany's education for technology. We now not only have "politically correct thinking", and policies that come with the power to control what we say, but a population that thinks this is a good

I agree that conformity is a problem, but I think it emerges from the ground up, mostly as a response to fear of power. It is also contagious in that people who see others profiting socially (or otherwise) from conformity have that much more incentive to try it for themselves. As it snowballs, it leads ever further in the direction of the kind of fascism that is known and feared in its most visible expression. I don't think democracy causes it, although freedom does allow almost anything until the checking and balancing begins. I don't remember Tocqueville's reasoning, though. Maybe you should explain citations instead of just dropping them and assuming implicit knowledge. There are also so many different notions of what democracy means floating around that it is almost impossible to critically evaluate claims about its causes and effects without specifying the details of specific social situations.

 

Precisely — we need and have social structure. Religion is not the entirety of social structure, so the absence of religion does not mandate social anarchy or extremism.

Who said anything about "mandating social anarchy or extremism?" All I was pointing out and asking about was why liberalism would focus so strongly on religion but not on other forms of (secular) repression. If social structure/control is good and good for people, why not use theological ideas and religious institutions for it? Personally, however, I think any form of structure/control/repression that is not self-governance of individuals over themselves has to be ethically justified according to the principle that people shouldn't be subjected to interventionary force arbitrarily or more than necessary. Having and enforcing rules for the sake of having and enforcing rules doesn't pass this test, imo.

 

 

 

[swansont]

 

Who said anything about "mandating social anarchy or extremism?" All I was pointing out and asking about was why liberalism would focus so strongly on religion but not on other forms of (secular) repression. If social structure/control is good and good for people, why not use theological ideas and religious institutions for it? Personally, however, I think any form of structure/control/repression that is not self-governance of individuals over themselves has to be ethically justified according to the principle that people shouldn't be subjected to interventionary force arbitrarily or more than necessary. Having and enforcing rules for the sake of having and enforcing rules doesn't pass this test, imo.

 

You asked why a loss of religion doesn't result in an orgy-o-rama.

[lemur]

You asked why a loss of religion doesn't result in an orgy-o-rama.

 

Lol. Not exactly, but I see where you would get that. I'm more interested in why non-religious people continue to remain relatively silent about sex, sexual desire, etc. as if they were still ashamed of it in some way. I always thought that sexual shame was a product of religious taboos but I'm beginning to think that is not the case. I think sexual shame may actually be itself a mechanism of social-control. Sex is a very fundamental desire for almost everyone, so if there are some taboos on sexual expression and people are driven to break those taboos, it creates an opportunity to exploit those people's will to keep their transgressions a secret. So, for example, one can think of Tiger Woods, Catholic pedophiles, or any of the other perversions publicly outed lately. Presumably there are lots more that we don't hear about because they paid sufficient amounts of compensation to the witnesses of their sexuality to keep them quiet about it. It is like a system of prostitution where no payment has to be agreed-upon before initiating the act. It is like a means of extracting taxes and re-distributing wealth/income without having to justify it in public politics.

Edited February 2, 2011 by lemur